Alarm Protection Tech. v. Bradburn
Alarm Protection Tech. v. Bradburn, 2021 UT 25 (Lee, A.S.J.) (Petersen J., concurring, Durrant C.J. and Himonas J. joining)
Bradburn sued APT over disputed unpaid commissions. He now appeals one district court order. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed, holding:
- The district court correctly ruled that Bradburn’s motion for return of excess proceeds was both procedurally barred and substantively meritless. Bradburn failed to advance his argument at the right place and time in the district court—and failed to file a notice appeal from denial of the motion wherein he did advance the argument he makes on appeal. Further, his arguments are unsupported by our rules.
- Attorney fees are not awarded to APT, because Bradburn’s claims are not frivolous or for delay.
- Concurring opinion: For a host of reasons, the rules committee should reconsider our statutory scheme allowing a party to litigation to purchase and then extinguish a claim.